Child Support Case Summary

Christopher Lambesis (Father) and Erin Lambesis (Mother) were divorced in 2013. In the divorce decree, Father was ordered to pay Mother $100 per month for child support for the two minor children. In October 2014, Father filed a Petition to Modify Child Support. Based on his own calculations using the Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support, he requested Mother pay him $100 per month. Mother requested a hearing in response including her own calculations indicating that Father should be paying her $123 per month. An evidentiary hearing was held and the court ordered Father to pay mother child support amounting to $149.30 per month. Father filed a Motion for a New Trial stating that he was not provided with documentation regarding Mother’s financial status in a timely manner and that the family court’s child support obligation calculations were incorrect. Mother filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The court denied Father’s request for a new trial and granted Mother’s request for attorney fees. Father filed a motion to reconsider the allocation of parenting time coordinator’s fees. This motion was also denied. Father appealed the court’s decision.

On September 21, 2012, ACEDS Case Action Update/Display documented by Social Service Representative, Richard Gordon stated that Ms. Williams arrived to the agency to apply for Supplmental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and Medicaid for her child only. During the visit, CARE interface revealed that Ms. Williams had an open Medicaid case in Maryland (#47403882500). Maryland Social Services also reported that she was employed by CPR Medical as of August 9, 2012, and paid bi-weekly $850.00. Ms. Williams also reportedly received unearned monthly income from SSI in September 2012 in the amount of $440.34, and in October 2012, in the amount of $370.54. As a result, Ms. Williams was denied expedited Foodstamps pending paystubs and her application was marked as "pending."

Summary: It is the most stressful part in anybody’s life to fight a case for the protection of your children. The Family Lawyer for Child Custody Denton TX does a fabulous job for the protection of children legally.

Mobile County DHR’s representative revealed that the on August 27, 2015, the FIDM hearing was requested. On August 31, 2015, the balances were provided to the NCP’s attorney. On September 11, 2015, a notice was received from Regions Bank stating there are no funds available. On October 7, 2015, the child support supervisor reviewed the accounts of the hearing. The agency closed the State arrears accounts due to the accounts being more than 20 years old and meeting the statute of limitations. Also on that same date, the State interest account was closed. On November 10, 2015, the case was reviewed for enforcement; payments were being submitted for the NCP's additional cases only. On the same date, the court ordered a payback of $120.00 to Seymour Fleet Inc.; an income withholding order was sent. On November 15, 2015, the spreadsheet was completed beginning with the judgement amounts given during the November 1, 2006 court hearing in the amounts of $16,917.68 in arrears and $18,127.09 in interest both to

Father contends that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to modify its child-support order. Mother avers, however, that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify its child-support order. We agree with Mother.

She stated she moved out of her mother’s home to Northport, Alabama with her oldest child Antonio being placed in elementary school. She stated that in 1987 or 1988, she moved to Canton, Ohio, where she applied for Aid to Dependent Child (ADC); she was informed that someone was already receiving ADC for the children. She stated that she received notification from DHR in Tuscaloosa stating that they did not keep records back that far; the only records they have shown that she received Medicaid at the time. Ms. Lawson stated that during that time, her mother deceived DHR, the juvenile court, etc. and they are still being deceived to this day. Ms. Lawson stated she has always taken care of her children, has never given up custody of her children, been on the system very little; and has always maintained a job. Ms. Lawson stated that other than this issue, she wanted it known that there are other cases regarding her mother having to do with fraud and manipulation of the courts, DHR, and her children; court cases

In Florida there are a lot of ways for the state to enforce child support orders among these are late payment notices, income withholding, federal income tax refund intercept, garnishment, passport denial and more. With late payment notices the parent who owes child support is mailed notices. After that they can move to income withholding, this means that the state will send an income withholding notice to the employer and any other payer of income, payments are then withheld and sent directly to the state. After this is driver license and registration suspension, in this case the parent would be mailed a notice asking them to come into an office to speak with someone. The parent is also mailed a notice stating that their license and registration may be suspended if they don’t pay what they owe to the other parent, sign a written agreement for the payment of the past due support, or file a petition with the courts to contest the issue within twenty days.

As any Oklahoma parent can attest, there is much that goes into raising children, including providing financial support. With few exceptions, both parents share this, and the other responsibilities that come with bringing up children. When couples are unmarried or divorce, however, family law judges often issue child support orders to ensure that both parents follow through with their financial obligations for their children.

On March 4, 2015, the subpoena sent to the address at 3412½ 7th Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 was returned stating, moved; unable to forward. The subpoena sent to the address at 3758 8th Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 has not returned. The agency has no notice of where that subpoena went. On May 5, 2015, the CP showed for the court hearing and was tested. A court hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2015. A court notice was mailed to the address at 3412½ 7th Street. The CP did not appear for the June 2, 2015 hearing. Therefore, a sanction was sent. According to Child Support Policy and Procedure Manual 5.10.1 which states, each person receiving child support services, regardless of whether (s)he is TANF or non-TANF, is required to cooperate with DHR. That includes activities such as, which is listed in Policy 5.10.1.B.2, appearing as a witness at judicial or other hearings or proceedings. In Policy 5.10.3.A, states when the CP in a TANF, foster care, or Medicaid-only case does not cooperate with IV-D activities, DHR must notify the appropriate referring agency, which in this case would be the Family Assistance of its client’s non-cooperation, which Child Support did notify TANF of this on June 4, 2015 for a sanction to be done. Another court hearing was

Dallas County DHR’s representatives revealed through testimony that the non-custodial parent (NCP), Tyrone Smith has three child support cases. Spreadsheets were processed through to June 2015 regarding the money paid and the court order amount; including changes and credit given when the NCP was in prison on July 6, 2015. The case with the custodial parent (CP), Malinda Smith, the balances owed is arrears $6,201.35 and interest $14,526.71. The second case, the CP, Louis Reeves, shows the balances owed are interest $3,259.08 and medical support $55.10. The last case with the CP, Rosa Dukes, the balances owed is arrears $232.25 and interest $3,738.84. Based on the spreadsheets, the amounts are correct on all the child support cases. The spreadsheets do not include the month of July; interest will accrue.

She was also dominated by many fears and anxiety related to her children’s safety. She did not have a job and was getting divorced. It seemed that for 4 years the claimant did not have any mental health treatment. Her mental condition equaled disability-listing 12.06.

Per our conversation on October 6, I have selected your law firm to represent me in connection with my daughter Hannah child support collection case. I am certain that you will have Hannah's best interests in mind which will allow her to finally enjoy the happier and healthier life that she deserves.

This matter was before the Attorney Referee on Tuesday, June 06, 2017, for a hearing on Defendant-Father’s Objection to Uniform Child Support Order immediate effect dated April 19, 2017, at which time Plaintiff and Defendant appeared in pro per. However; the Defendant-Father left the hearing before it concluded and slammed the door on his way out.

Elmore County DHR’s testimony revealed that the parties were divorced on April 25, 2008 in Montgomery County Circuit Court. At that time, the non-custodial parent (NCP) was ordered to pay $534.00 a month beginning May 1, 2008. After reviewing ALACOURT, there are no additional orders regarding this case. The custodial parent (CP) applied for child support services on January 11, 2011. Elmore County DHR’s representative referenced Chapter 9.1.2.a.C of the Child Support Policy and Procedures Manual, which is paraphrased, once the client comes in and there is an order established prior to the application, the client is to fill out the Affidavit of Past Due Support, and collect all available payment records; this is what the agency has done. On that same day that the CP applied for services, the court’s payment record was pulled. The CP’s Affidavit of Past Due Support was also received at that time. The balances were loaded on DHR’s Alabama Location Enforcement Child Support System based on all the collected information. In the meantime the hearing was requested, DHR pulled the court’s payment record again to ensure there were no additional payments that DHR was unaware of and recalculated the arrears on a spreadsheet. The Agency obtained the same arrears balance, but the interest balance showed a one-cent difference. After reviewing the arrears, DHR finds no error based on the CP’s Affidavit, the court’s payment record and DHR’s payment record. The final calculation showed the arrears total of $11,456.58 and the interest total of $6,986.27 due in child support.

Family courts are convened to make orders regarding family laws, child custody and divorces. A large number of cases that are heard in family cases are divorce cases. In such cases there is a need for lawyers who can handle the case with utmost care.